Could anybody have expected this summer’s supposed runaway hit, to be such a starched, lumbering log? (All of my hopes for an exciting summer film are invested in Burton’s re-working of “Planet of the Apes.”) Was anyone expecting “Pearl Harbor” to take the “Titanic” prerequisite? While my initial fears of Michael Bay turning a serious page in our history books into a summer-rollercoaster-thrill ride were quickly dismissed, his enrollment and emulation of James Cameron’s “how to” school of sappy, crappy moviemaking quickly shifted into gear, and left me appalled for a dull, uneventful three-hours (despite the impact of the real event that was depicted).

Two boys, one cocky, one shy (Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, in that order) are military birddogs during the forming of World War II. They meet some nurses and the cocky one finds his match (Kate Beckinsale, made to look as much as possible like Liv Tyler, since she wasn’t available for this) but then goes to help out the Brits. A little less than an hour into it, Affleck “dies.” Anyone who believes he’s dead, what are you thinking? You just have to know he’s going to resurface at some inopportune time. And that time turns out to be when Affleck’s best-buddy, who in the middle of nowhere became giant flirt with his buddy’s girl (“I didn’t sleep a wink last night”). So what we have here is a Jerry Springer episode waiting to happen. After some quarreling, it’s broken up briefly to deal with the bombing on December 7th, and then gets back to some more “surprises” (her pregnancy) before closing with a “sad” finale and a pre-show strike, back on Japan right as the United States finally became involved.

The idea for this was so horrible, with so many faults, I don’t even know where to begin. If they are going to make a movie called “Pearl Harbor,” one might expect for what happens in the movie, to have some actual pertinence to the event. They might as well have used some made up war because the impact and importance of setting this movie against the disaster (actually, it places the importance ahead of Pearl Harbor) makes it unimportant and only to solicit pathos and attention that any regular romance wouldn’t have brought in by itself. Clearly, this isn’t a movie about war. Ultimately, the relevance to the war is adumbrated and condensed down to one continuous passage of bombings and explosions, courtesy of computer graphics, interspersed snippets of Affleck and Hartnett running around the entire time looking for planes to fly. The biggest embarrassment is how it is made to appear that those characters (fictitious, I might add) are attributed with much of the praise for retaliating back right away. When in actuality, they would have been equally as caught off guard and unprepared to do any fighting back at that moment. Bay and script writer Randall Wallace alter and toy with something that should be treated with respect and left only to those serious, capable filmmakers. “Armageddon” and “The Rock” hardly qualify you to touch on something so sacred. Where historical accuracy is graded, this isn’t passing. Of course the focus of the movie is less interested with any historical contexts or contingencies, and instead on some corny love plot. (“All I ever wanted was for us to have a house and grow old. But life didn’t ask me!”)

The embarrassments continue: What was the point of having Cuba Gooding, Jr. as Doris Miller? The only reasons I can see why he was included in the movie at all was because a) it would “tie down” a portion of the movie to something real, unlike the rest (even though Gooding’s on-screen time was about 15-minutes at the very most); and b) because there were no other black characters. It’s insulting to the Japanese: not only does it not put a face or motivation on any of them (and what little “humanity” they give Yamamoto is superficial), but it relegates their well-planned and well-timed surprise attack as nothing more than a whim that just happened to “come” to Yamamoto as he stared at some children. Throughout all of the inaccuracies that are visible (the fact that anything was adjusted to make it more “appealing” is unforgivable) and liberties that are taken (for example, with Roosevelt), to try and make us, the Americans, look less stupid and unprepared, Wallace tends to shift the blame and undermine how unprepared we were. (Just like he messed with the facts in “Braveheart.” And if you can’t tell by the goofy, ridiculous dialogue he writes, he ain’t no Hemingway!: “Remember, pain is temporary — glory is forever”)

The tone of the characters was all wrong, too. This is a period piece, these characters are supposed to be “individuals” from the 1940s. But Affleck and Hartnett (not to mention the ‘tudes of the nurses as well) are instead written with a ‘90s mentality and attitude. They are so incorrectly scripted and portrayed, culminated with a “Independence Day”/ “I’m gonna kick your ass”-style personality, occasionally and superficially twisting them into the “Oh golly, gee”-type. Just because they want the movie to fit into a summer blockbuster style doesn’t mean they are free to tamper with how people of that time would have acted.

The visual effects during the bombing sequence are merely okay — nothing spectacularly remarkable for a budget of $150 million. (Reportedly, Affleck took a pay cut from his $12 million fee, down to $250,000 to save production costs. For what reason? The effects were hardly used, where did all the money go to?) The flying sequences looked poor, at least the realisticness of the planes did, and for what he could do, Bay presented it like it was some air show, intact with stealth maneuvering. Most of the technical facilities were quite deficient and sterile — the frantically scattered hand-held shots, the funky and uncalled-for changes in the color palette, the rapid editing in sections, the melodramatic and mightily annoying musical score, etc. What was the cause for all this false patriotism, all this back-patting? Spielberg didn’t approach “Schindler’s List” or “Saving Private Ryan” like that. What authority does Bay have on such a subject? Is America so decadent in their support and interest in this nation? I don’t think so; while we may be somewhat lacking from any salient flag-waving, I don’t see anything wrong with that. And I cannot even begin to imagine “Pearl Harbor” causing up such a stir. On that note, I cannot imagine anyone being swept (or blown away, for that matter) by this cheesy romance. Neither of the two lead boys are very likable. They are drawn so empty and nondescript, you feel nothing for them and could care less what happens to them. That ends up being three-hours that you spend with these stupid cartoons, while receiving nothing in return. Affleck, a young actor I used to like and thought had some worthwhile talent, has turned into nothing but an uncharismatic showboat. A whiny nerd. A big-screen pest. Hartnett, still an up-and-comer, is so flat in this role, you can’t tell if it’s just him, or Wallace’s terrible characterization. Beckinsale, who was pretty darn good in “The Last Days of Disco” and “Brokedown Palace,” is stiff and lumber here. Her speech is hokey and restrained, and her physical resemblance to Tyler, but complete absence of commensurable talent is utterly embarrassing for Beckinsale in her unsuccessful attempt, and for Tyler in the unflattering, unmatched imitation. Nothing much can be said for Baldwin, who seems to have lost any knack for acting that he used to have, and what the hell was Dan Aykroyd doing here? Everyone who participated in this ought to be ashamed of themselves and the desecration of the event and people who really were involved in this, that they perpetuated by backing this.